Slate's Bizbox
frame game: How you look at things.

Gloom and Doom

By William Saletan
Posted Friday, Jan. 5, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET
Illustration by Robert Neubecker

When the Federal Reserve cut interest rates Wednesday afternoon, Wall Street momentarily exulted. At a conference of corporate chieftains in Austin, Texas, however, George W. Bush wasn't buying. "A lot of folks in this room brought some pretty bad news: that their sales are slowing, that they're having to trim back their work force," Bush reported grimly. "We've got to be mindful of the warning signs." The Fed's action, as Bush saw it, merely confirmed "that measures must be taken to make sure our economy does not go into a tailspin."

For more than a month, Bush has trumpeted "warning signs," a "slowdown," and a "downturn" in the economy. Dick Cheney says we're "on the front edge of a recession." Bush says we need a "recovery." It's true that economic indicators have declined, but Bush's rhetoric exceeds them in severity and persistence. Why? One theory is that he doesn't want to be blamed for a downturn that started on President Clinton's watch. The other, buttressed by Bush's routine segue to tax cuts ("Tax relief is part of the prescription for any economic ill that our nation may have"), is that he's trying to sell us his favorite elixir by convincing us that we're sick. Instead of brushing off these tactics, opportunistic Democrats and bored journalists are suggesting that Bush may be damaging the economy further by scaring consumers and investors. But that charge is either false or hypocritical. If bleak predictions are self-fulfilling, then the bleak prediction that Bush's bleak prediction will fulfill itself only makes matters worse.

"Frame Game" has exposed this paradox before. First we saw how the complaint that an opponent is comparing apples to oranges exemplifies the same sleight-of-hand it criticizes: "Your opponent compares two things. You say the comparison is bogus because they're two different kinds of things. To prove the point, you compare both things to fruit." Then we noticed the same flaw in charges of hypocrisy: Having switched sides in an argument (you're now for federal judicial intervention, while I'm for states' rights), I hypocritically call you a hypocrite. Now we've encountered a third self-illustrating complaint. The loud and persistent charge that your opponent is engaging in dire "self-fulfilling prophecy" is equally self-fulfilling.

On Dec. 9, a week after Bush sounded the alarm, Clinton adviser Gene Sperling pointedly criticized tax-cut enthusiasts who "talk down the economy." Two weeks later, White House Press Secretary Jake Siewert chided Bush, arguing that when policymakers aren't "measured" in their economic remarks, their "influence over the way in which people think" can undermine the "confidence" on which the economy depends. On Dec. 16, a front-page New York Times story ("Saying Downturn Is Possible, Bush Trumpets Tax Cut") said presidents usually refrain from statements such as Bush's to avoid "rattling financial markets." On Dec. 26, a front-page Los Angeles Times article ("A Bearish Bush Has Economists Worrying") warned, "Bush's persistently gloomy assessment of the nation's economic prospects has a variety of economists and policy experts nervous that [he] is about to make a bad situation worse." Three days later, a Times editorial predicted that Bush's comments might "plunge the country into recession." This morning, a front-page Washington Post report asked whether the "pessimistic talk by Bush and the executives" at his conference Wednesday "could become a self-fulfilling blow to consumer confidence."

It's true that Bush's ominous talk is, by his own standards, reckless. In other contexts, he has affirmed that fear and skepticism fulfill themselves through mass psychology. In Florida, Bush's surrogates accused Democrats and reporters of crippling the presidency by sowing doubts about Bush's victory. Two weeks ago, Bush said he was naming Paul O'Neill as his treasury secretary because "we must have a steady voice coming out of our administration" that "can calm people's nerves, calm the markets." On Jan. 2, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters, "When businesses make investment decisions, for example, and people make long-term planning decisions, if they know a permanent tax cut has been enacted that's going to give them more money in their pockets, it affects what they do." Economic anticipation, in other words, shapes economic reality.

By hyping a vicious circle of gloom and doom, however, Democrats and journalists have joined it. Siewert's Dec. 21 press conference, coupled with Sperling's allegation that Bush was sending "the wrong signal to the markets," provoked a front-page Post story about whether Bush's "bearish talk could become a self-fulfilling prophecy." The Post described how "high-level Clinton administration officials worked the airwaves and telephones, charging that Bush is trying to promote his tax cut at the expense of market confidence." The next day, under the headline "Consumer Confidence Plunges," the New York Times reported that Sperling was accusing Republicans of endangering economic "stability" by "creating anxiety." Three days later, the Los Angeles Times used similar quotes from former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin—"It's dangerous for people in high places to talk about recession. … It's making a steeper downturn more likely"—to support its front-page alarm about Bush's "self-fulfilling prophecy."

Having proposed that the prophecy might fulfill itself, the media have proceeded to help fulfill it. "Confidence among both investors and consumers appears to be deteriorating. If left unchecked, that could lead to more concrete economic problems," the New York Times warned on Dec. 20. "As Consumers Turn Pessimistic, Factory Workers Feel the Chill," the paper chimed in two days later. "With this pessimism comes the risk that spending will fall further, requiring companies to reduce excess inventories and cut their payrolls—a situation that could potentially snowball into something much worse." The next day, the Times assisted the snowball along, using quotes from pollsters ("What we are hearing has the potential for weakening consumer confidence") to project a crippling funk, which according to the story, would infect the public through "pessimistic media reports."

The echo chamber leads, of course, back to Bush. From the beginning, he has cited comments by others—"people are concerned about the economy … I've heard concerns expressed about the automobile sector"—to justify his dark outlook. Now he can wave clips. Bush is "not saying anything that people aren't reading in their newspapers everyday," Fleischer told reporters on Dec. 21, three weeks after Bush and Cheney began filling the newspapers with dire forecasts. The next day, after the papers obliged Fleischer with front-page handwringers, Bush submitted their work as evidence of his thesis. "There are some clear warning signs, warning signs that will require what we believe is important action in the halls of Congress, such as tax relief," said Bush. "There are some headlines, stories today about consumer confidence in some of the major newspapers."

This was the point—along with massaging contributors—of Bush's economic conference. To justify his tax cut, he needed deep pessimism. To make that pessimism appear objective, he needed to launder it through newspapers and business leaders. That's why Bush invited General Electric CEO Jack Welch to the microphone Wednesday to tell reporters that the outlook is "steadily declining … [a]nd we are going to need the bold action that you're proposing to get this economy back on track." Rather than take responsibility for spreading the gloom, Bush attributed it to the "folks in this room" whose "unanimity" had made it a "common theme" of the conference. Bush, as promised, will govern by consensus. But first, with the help of his adversaries, he has to invent it.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


[Notes from the Fray Editor: What was it with the apples and oranges? Many readers took issue with this small part of the article--see for example here and here. (Shakespearean moment in The Fray: surely they're nothing like the sun, Andrew?) Others wanted to tell us that they had their own view on the economy, not affected by those so-called experts: "Ya Think", below, had the neatest version. And there was an interesting discussion of balanced budgets starting here.]


The dismissive commentary about Bush's economic statements is not a reinforcing factor. It is a counter factor. Allow me a metaphor [Note from Fray Editor: Please. So long as it does not involve apples and oranges]. Imagine that Kathie Lee Gifford held a press conference, declaring the economy was approaching a recession. Would the markets be concerned, with consumer confidence declining and stock prices plunging--or would we all have a good laugh and move on? What the press commentary is doing is more likely to "Giffordize" the Bush and team statements. By making clear the agenda of these comments…
1. Pressing for a tax cut as valid economic need
2. Immunizing the incoming Bush administration from any potential downturn that may occur.
….the public and markets can make a more rational assessment of their validity. To state this agenda lessens the sources' impact.

My personal assessment of tax cuts: Bush is really out of line. A President can take actions that affect the economy, and by declaring an oncoming "recession" he makes that recession more likely. We are in a slowdown, which is inevitable, as businesses have to take a breather on keeping up on new technology in order to integrate the radical changes over the past 5 years. You can't just keep changing tech rapidly: you lose productivity constantly integrating new tech and training up to it.

Oh, and a tax cut has no effect on any "upcoming recession" anyway...it will take congress time to pass it. Then it will not take effect until the next tax year...so at best we are two years away from any practical application. Long after an "upcoming recession" would hit. This leaves aside the fact that the Fed would have no choice but to keep rates higher than they would otherwise to counterbalance the cut, and Fed interest rates have a more immediate and powerful effect on the economy that tax policy, so it's counter-productive from an economic sense.


The best scenario, economically is to hold off tax cuts, keep those prostitutes (from both parties) in Congress from pork-wasting the surplus, and pay off the debt. Then cut taxes afterwards.

--John Nowicki

(To reply, click here.)


If you have been watching the business news channels over the last four months (from about Sep on) you have seen a veritable parade of analysts arguing an oncoming recession (or at a minimum a severe slowdown). While I don't really agree with their belief in this regard, I certainly don't believe they were all part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Why not give Bush the benefit of the doubt in at least that he believes what he says? There are a lot that agree with him (even before he voiced the concern). It is right and proper to disagree with his assessment, it is not helpful to assume the worst of motives for everything he says or does.

--Michael Murray

(To reply, click here.)


Do the media reporters/writers really believe that they have so much sway over our opinions that just because they report to us that somebody, somewhere said the economy was going to be bad that we actually believe this?

Last time I checked, my opinion of the economy as it affects me personally was based on:
1. The prospect of my future continued employment. Data input from my boss and the sales department.
2. The amount of money I have in the bank. Data input from the bank.
3. My current level of expenditures. Data input from my wife.
4. My future level of needed expenditures. Data input from my wife and, occasionally, my fishing buddies.

Sorry but GWB, Greenspan, and any number of media and politics hacks didn't make the list of reputable data sources. I guess I don't need them after all.

--Ya Think

(To reply, click here.)

(1/5)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Fiscal Drunkards, Dry Out
Ruth Marcus | Which candidate could lead us to economic sobriety?
Meyerson: Gods That FailedMilbank: Confidence Isn't Cheap